3 ms·

Because you want to split hairs over terminology, I will rephrase: I did not want to contribute to OSS anymore because watching other people make money off of m

Because you want to split hairs over terminology, I will rephrase: I did not want to contribute to OSS anymore because watching other people make money off of my unpaid work made me feel undervalued and resentful. It also made me realize I didn't have to do any OSS contribution to get good jobs and spend unpaid time coding stuff for other people to use. There I didn't use the word "exploited".. are you happy now?

mhurron 12y ago
I'm not splitting hairs. You made work freely made available for others to use, they used it, this somehow exploited you. > I did not want to contribute to OSS anymore because watching other people make money off of my unpaid work made me feel undervalued and resentful. Again, what did you think was going to happen to work you freely made available for people to use as they saw fit. They used it as they saw fit. You are complaining that people did what you expressly allowed them to do. It's probably best that you stopped contributing, you clearly didn't understand what you were doing.
- cwyers 12y ago
  Think of it this way. Community-developed software kinda runs on a stone soup model -- everyone brings something to the pot, everyone gets something back OUT of the pot, everyone gets something that is better than the sum of the parts contributed to it. This can be a good thing. It doesn't stop you from being miffed if you figure out that there's a restaurant in town that's coming, dropping off a bit of mirepoix, hauling off a cauldron's worth and selling it the next town over. And in the macro sense, there are a lot of companies who have figured out how to use the communities that have developed around open source and free software as a low cost to free source of labor. And important infrastructure products like OpenSSL end up being used EVERYWHERE but starved for resources because everyone can just freeride off the work of a few people until something like Heartbleed comes along and exposes the costs of it. And there's probably at least a few products that are in the same boat as OpenSSL and we just won't know what those are until the next Heartbleed. And it makes it really, really hard to solve these problems when we can't even talk about them openly without people being personally attacked for discussing it.
  - mhurron 12y ago
    > Community-developed software kinda runs on a stone soup model That's a nice idea, and many people do operate that way, but in no way is it required, enforced or the norm. Most people use OSS without ever contributing back. They find what solves a problem they have and they use it. They can do this because the explicit license allows them to do it. You might have had the intention of 'share and share alike' but the explicit permissions say otherwise. > It doesn't stop you from being miffed if you figure out that there's a restaurant in town that's coming, dropping off a bit of mirepoix, hauling off a cauldron's worth and selling it the next town over. It makes your anger over it occurring irrational.

mhurron 12y ago

I'm not splitting hairs. You made work freely made available for others to use, they used it, this somehow exploited you. > I did not want to contribute to OSS anymore because watching other people make money off of my unpaid work made me feel undervalued and resentful. Again, what did you think was going to happen to work you freely made available for people to use as they saw fit. They used it as they saw fit. You are complaining that people did what you expressly allowed them to do. It's probably best that you stopped contributing, you clearly didn't understand what you were doing.

cwyers 12y ago
Think of it this way. Community-developed software kinda runs on a stone soup model -- everyone brings something to the pot, everyone gets something back OUT of the pot, everyone gets something that is better than the sum of the parts contributed to it. This can be a good thing. It doesn't stop you from being miffed if you figure out that there's a restaurant in town that's coming, dropping off a bit of mirepoix, hauling off a cauldron's worth and selling it the next town over. And in the macro sense, there are a lot of companies who have figured out how to use the communities that have developed around open source and free software as a low cost to free source of labor. And important infrastructure products like OpenSSL end up being used EVERYWHERE but starved for resources because everyone can just freeride off the work of a few people until something like Heartbleed comes along and exposes the costs of it. And there's probably at least a few products that are in the same boat as OpenSSL and we just won't know what those are until the next Heartbleed. And it makes it really, really hard to solve these problems when we can't even talk about them openly without people being personally attacked for discussing it.
- mhurron 12y ago
  > Community-developed software kinda runs on a stone soup model That's a nice idea, and many people do operate that way, but in no way is it required, enforced or the norm. Most people use OSS without ever contributing back. They find what solves a problem they have and they use it. They can do this because the explicit license allows them to do it. You might have had the intention of 'share and share alike' but the explicit permissions say otherwise. > It doesn't stop you from being miffed if you figure out that there's a restaurant in town that's coming, dropping off a bit of mirepoix, hauling off a cauldron's worth and selling it the next town over. It makes your anger over it occurring irrational.